There are several ways to overcome the barriers to effective use of adaptive management in landscape-scale forest restoration projects.
These suggested bridges, which are supported by findings in the AM literature and by the experiences of participants in CFLRP projects, include: incorporating key components of active AM, embracing and employing collaborative AM, and developing effective channels of communication.
Incorporating Key Components of Active Adaptive Management
If a project plans to use an AM approach, such an approach will be most effective if it is implemented in a scientifically robust manner and in accordance with the key components of active AM. This means us-ing models, conductus-ing experiments; developus-ing a sound monitorus-ing program; pre-defining how monitoring information will be used; iden-tifying trigger points that will cause a change in management actions, including mechanisms to ensure monitoring information actually feeds back into decision-making; and making decisions in a collaborative manner. These elements are especially important considering the high degree of stakeholder involvement in forest restoration programs such as CFLRP.
Develop Collaborative Governance for Adaptive Management
Successful AM approaches are increasingly being characterized as col-laborative AM, a process whereby stakeholders play a critical role in defining objectives, interpreting data, and feeding information back into decision-making (Susskind et al. 2012). Inclusive and collabora-tive processes can encourage social learning, build political support, foster effective communication, and develop appropriate and scientifi-cally rigorous monitoring and management approaches. In practicing collaborative AM, it is important to:
f be inclusive and encourage active participation in as many steps of the process as possible, especially defining shared goals and objectives.
f encourage partnerships with third parties (universities, non-governmental organizations, local industry, etc.) and engage a diverse and representative group of citizens and stakeholders.
f define a collaborative structure (e.g., roles and responsibilities, decision-making processes, funding) before beginning a proj-ect. It does not necessarily have to be formal (e.g., an inde-pendent monitoring board), but it should be explicit. Many groups have found it useful to have a monitoring coordinator who works to coordinate the monitoring and AM process across jurisdictions and among participants.
f cultivate champions who will sustain the energy, investment, and atmosphere of honesty and openness within and across organizations that is needed to be successful.
Develop Effective Channels for Communication and Adapting Management Actions
Transmitting what is learned through AM between different levels of management, across jurisdictions, and among stakeholders is both challenging and absolutely necessary. For instance, if there are prob-lems or surprising results observed through multi-party monitoring, there need to be clear mechanisms by which managers can under-stand this information and adapt their approaches. Some suggestions from real projects include:
f Build a scientifically sound monitoring program based on clear and measurable questions. It may also include elements such as collaborative oversight of project planning and imple-mentation, as well as annual reporting of actions, outcomes, and effects.
f Make sure monitoring occurs and information is used by linking monitoring to specific decisions and legally
enforce-able documents (e.g., a Record of Decision, Finding of No Significant Impact, or Incidental Take Permit under the ESA), defining clear triggers and timelines, and developing implementable mitigation measures or action alternatives. It is also important to identify funding needs early and plan for them in annual budget cycles.
f Develop and agree to an AM framework that defines trig-gers early in the planning process, links monitoring and implementation, and clarifies when, how, and at what scale monitoring information will be used to inform management actions.
f Maintain forums and means for effective communication and oversight, such as hiring a professional facilitator and/or monitoring coordinator to manage and provide consistency for group interactions.
References
Allan, C. and A. Curtis. 2005. Nipped in the bud: Why regional scale adaptive management is not blooming. Environmental
Management 36(3):414-425.
Benson, M. 2009. Integrating adaptive management and oil and gas development: Existing obstacles and opportunities for reform.
Environmental Law Reporter 39(10).
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008. Pinedale Anticline Project Area Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Washington, DC: Bureau of Land Management.
Blumm, M.C. and S.L. Bosse. 2007. Norton v. SUWA and the unraveling of federal public land planning. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 18:105-160.
Bormann B.T. and A.R. Kiester. 2004. Options forestry: Acting on uncertainty. Journal of Forestry 102:22-27.
Brunner, R.D. and T.W. Clark. 1997. A practice-based approach to ecosystem management. Conservation Biology
11:48-58.
Cheng, T. and V.E. Sturtevant. 2012. A framework for assessing collaborative capacity in community-based public forest management. Environmental Management 49:675-689.
Davis, C. 2012. Developing Monitoring Questions for the South western Crown Collaborative. Power Point Presentation.
DeLuca, T.H., G.H. Aplet, B. Wilmer, and J. Burchfield. 2010.
The unknown trajectory of forest restoration: A call for ecosystem monitoring. Journal of Forestry 108(6):288-295.
DOI (Department of the Interior). 2009. Adaptive Management:
The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide.
Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior.
Doremus, H. 2001. Adaptive management, the Endangered Species Act, and the institutional challenges of “new age”
environmental protection. Washburn Law Journal 41:50-89.
___. 2008. Data gaps in natural resource management: Sniffing for leaks along the information pipeline. Indiana Law Journal 83:407-461.
Failing, L., G. Horn, and P. Higgins. 2004. Using expert judgment and stakeholder values to evaluate adaptive management options. Ecology and Society 9:13.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M., H.L. Ballard, and V.E. Sturtevant. 2008.
Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: A study of five
community-based forestry organizations in the western USA.
Ecology and Society 13(2):4.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30:441-473.
Gunderson, L.H. 2000. Ecological resilience: In theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:425-439.
Gunderson, L.H., C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light, eds. 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gregory, R., D. Ohlson, and J. Arvai. 2006. Deconstructing adaptive management: Criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecological Applications 16:2411-2425.
Halbert, C.L. 1993. How adaptive is adaptive management?
Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia. Reviews in Fisheries Science 1:261-283.
Holling, C.S., ed. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Jacobson, S.K., J.K Morris, J.S. Sanders, E.N. Wiley, M.
Brooks, R.E. Bennetts, H.F. Percival, and S. Marynowski.
2006. Understanding barriers to implementation of an adaptive land management program. Conservation Biology 20(5):1516-1527.
Jakeman, T., S. Chen, L. Newham, and C. Pollino. 2009.
Modeling and adaptive environmental management.
Pages 173-187 in C. Allan and G.H. Stankey, eds., Adaptive environmental management: A practitioner’s guide. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Johnson, B.L. 1999. The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management agencies.
Conservation Ecology 3:8.
Karkkainen, B. 2003. Whither NEPA? NYU Environmental Law Journal 12:333-363.
Kusel, J., S.C. Doak, S. Carpenter, and V.E. Sturtevant. 1996. The role of the public in adaptive ecosystem management. Pages 611-624 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Volume II. Davis, CA: Center for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California.
Lachapelle, P.R., S.F. McCool, and M.E. Patterson. 2003. Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a “messy” world.
Society & Natural Resources 16(6):473-490.
Lee, K.N. 1994. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
___. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3:3.
Lindenmayer, D.B., C.R Margules, and D.B. Botkin. 2001.
Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation biology 14(4):941-950.
Lindenmayer, D.B. and G.E. Likens. 2009. Adaptive monitoring:
A new paradigm for long term research and monitoring.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(9):482-486.
Low, G., L. Provencher, and S. Abele. 2010. Enhanced
conservation action planning: Assessing landscape condition and predicting benefits of conservation strategies. Journal of Conservation Planning 6:36-60.
Lyons, J.E., M.C. Runge, H.P. Laskowski, and W.L. Kendall.
2008. Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1683-1692.
McLain, R.J. and R.G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive management:
Promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management 20:437-448.
Moir, W.H. and W.M. Block. 2001. Adaptive management on public lands in the United States: Commitment or rhetoric? Environmental Management 28:141-148.
Nichols, J. D., F.A. Johnson, and B.K. Williams. 1995. Managing North American waterfowl in the face of uncertainty. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:177-199.
Nichols, J.D. and B.K. Williams. 2006. Monitoring for
conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:668-673.
Nie, M. and C. Schultz. 2012. Decision-making triggers in adaptive management. Conservation Biology 26:1137-1144.
Nyberg, J.B. 1998. Statistics and the practice of adaptive management. Pages 1-7 in V. Sit and B. Taylor, eds., Statistical methods for adaptive management studies. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch.
Land Management Handbook 42.
Ringold, P.L., J. Alegria, R.L. Czaplewski, B.S. Mulder, T. Tolle, and K. Burnett. 1996. Adaptive monitoring design for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6:745-747.
Ruhl, J.B. and R.L. Fischman. 2010. Adaptive management in the courts. Minnesota Law Review 95:424-484.
Schultz, C. and D. Coelho. 2012. Preliminary report: The design and governance of multi-party monitoring under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Colorado State University.
Schultz, C., T. Jedd, and R. Beam. 2012. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program: A history and overview of the first projects. Journal of Forestry 110:381-391.
Schultz, C. and M. Nie. 2012. Decision-making triggers, adaptive management, and natural resources law and planning. Natural Resources Journal 52: 443-521.
Smith, A.C. 2009. Lessons learned from adaptive management practitioners in British Columbia, Canada. Pages 39-57 in C. Allan and G.H. Stankey, eds., Adaptive environmental management. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Stankey, G.H., B.T. Bormann, C. Ryan, B. Shindler, V.E.
Sturtevant, R.N. Clark, and C. Philpot. 2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: Rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry 101:40-46.
Susskind, L., A.E. Camacho, and T. Schenk. 2012. A critical
assessment of collaborative adaptive management in practice.
Journal of Applied Ecology 49(1):47-51.
USFS (United States Forest Service). 2009. Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative CFLRP Proposal.
___. USFS. 2012. Dalton Mountain forest restoration and fuels reduction project scoping document. Lincoln, MT: Helena National Forest, Lincoln Ranger District.
Volkman, J.M. and W.E. McConnaha. 1993. Through a glass, darkly: Columbia River salmon, the Endangered Species Act, and adaptive management. Environmental Law 23:1249-1272.
Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resource. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
___. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology [online]1(2):1.
Walters, C.J. and C.S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060-2068.
Williams, B.K. 2011. Adaptive management of natural resources:
Framework and issues. Journal of Environmental Management 92:1346-1353.
___. 2012. Reducing uncertainty about objective functions in adaptive management. Ecological Modeling 225:61-65.
T
his handbook was created to explore current opportunities for landscape management on federal lands, as well as the barriers and some of the innovative bridges being developed. Landscape-level planning has been the focus of research, modeling, and land management for decades. However, recent large disturbance events, including wildfire and insect-caused mortality, occurring at scales of 100,000s of contiguous acres have raised awareness and support for more active management across entire landscapes to restore ecosystem resilience and sustainability.The concept for this handbook was developed largely in response to the passage of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act (CFLRA) in 2009. Landscape level management, collaborative partnerships, and innovative contracting and implementation on federal landscapes over the last two decades contributed greatly to the initiation of this legislation and the bi-partisan funding support.
This act and the funded program, known as the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP), provide the largest supported national effort for landscape restoration. More importantly, the program sets the stage for management changes that do not require special funding authority.
Themes of Barriers and Bridges
Re-occurring themes of barriers and bridges emerge from this collection of chapters. Many of the barriers listed in these chapters are related to scale. Over time, humans have modified what are now current federal forested landscapes at large scales. Most recently (within the last century), these modifications include the removal of fire from fire-adapted systems, the reduction of old-growth trees, unevern-aged stands, and changed tree composition due to logging in many of our current-day national forests. In addition to scale, new tools and collaborative partnerships create changing paradigms for federal land management.
Conclusion
Amy E.M. WaltzEach preceding chapter provides some bridges to these barriers.
f Collaborative partnerships can create strange bedfellows (Chapter 1). In many cases, collaboration brings together people and organizations that have often been at odds, if not out-right conflict, with each other. Innovation, and now some experience, has shown that when multiple stakeholders can communicate values and find common ground, projects have a higher chance of success. However, it can be challenging to move past a history of mistrust. Bridges for this barrier include innovative authori-ties, like the CFLRP, which help the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), as well as stakeholders and citizens, re-interpret their traditional roles in federal land management. The results from examples in Chapter 1 are increased flexibility in project planning, imple-mentation, monitoring, and increased trust.
f This is further elaborated in Chapter 3, “Planning and NEPA,”
where the collaborative process in landscape planning and management is identified as the major innovative component of the CFLRP. However, it is not meant to replace current legal standards and guidelines. This chapter discusses potential meth-ods to plan at landscape scales. Key to success is the integra-tion of collaborative engagement at more than just the legally designated “public scoping and comment period.” This results in increased trust as stakeholders and resource professionals work to describe landscape management goals and the implementa-tion needed to meet goals.
f While all chapters in this book are closely linked, Chapter 2
“Ecologi cal Economics” and Chapter 5 “Contracting and Implementing” may be more co-dependent than any of the other topics. A barrier common to restoration projects across the nation is lack of complete funding. The CFLRP, for exam-ple, funds only implementation of the project, including some monitoring, but no project planning. However, planning at landscape scales with multiple stakeholders or partner agencies as collaborative partners can significantly increase planning
time. These planning costs for projects are covered by the USFS administrative unit. However, the CFLRP requires leveraged funds and provides innovative indicators and tools to show cost benefits of landscape-scale restoration work (Chapter 2). Imple-mentation of restoration treatments will not produce commer-cially viable products on every acre; however, use of stewardship contracting (Chapter 5) is an innovative bridge to maximize the value of goods available in a landscape project to pay for services on other acres and to meet landscape restoration goals. Most importantly, the stewardship contract authority changes the perspective of how we look at contracts on our forests: instead of basing contracts on what is leaving the forest, contracts empha-size what is left and our desired end result.
f Chapter 4 “Adaptive Management” and Chapter 6 “Multi-party Monitoring” are also closely linked. We cannot achieve adaptive management without strategic and SMART monitor-ing. Effectiveness monitoring of forest treatments on federal landscapes has been challenging to assess in the past. Federal funding cuts to land management and a lack of effectiveness metrics for accomplishments have led to a de-emphasis of effectiveness monitoring. This handbook illustrates how the legislation creating the CFLRP and the collaborative multi-party monitoring mandated by both this program and steward-ship contracting create a bridge for this barrier. The ability to prioritize appropriate indicators and select quantifiable metrics to assess those indicators will be key to measuring success or failure for today’s landscape-level projects. Appropriate adaptive management relies on these monitoring components. However, the specific AM approach can be determined by assessing how a specific collaboration works—who are the partners, what are the monitoring gaps and the levels of uncertainty? Adaptive management is not a boiler-plate plan easily adopted by land-scape efforts. Chapter 6 develops the idea that there are different approaches to adaptive management that can be determined by understanding both the ecological and social components of a landscape. A challenge for many landscape-level efforts is
“closing the adaptive management loop” with a defined
feed-back process and appropriate decision-maker “buy-in” to impact future project implementation. Suggested bridges include collab-orative participation in the adaptive management governance, as well as established lines of communication (Chapter 6).
Future Work and Applications
The chapters in this handbook relate specifically to how the funded CFLRP sites are addressing challenges. The examples presented share the diversity of landscapes, collaborative partners, and restoration strategies currently in play. These projects will continue to provide
“lessons learned,” including successes and failures, for years to come.
The continuing challenge will be to recognize change as innovative opportunity and to continue to revise the ways we collaborate, plan, fund and implement projects, monitor, and adapt. This handbook takes a much-needed step to compile these innovations and will be revised.
In addition to the guidelines in this handbook, additional networking tools are now available to encourage learning across administrative units and across multi-stakeholder collaborative
partnerships. Efforts to restore landscape-level resiliency are diverse and occur across the country, although the obstacles each effort faces have remarkable similarities. The ability to connect and learn from other sites can increase efficiency and will make each project stronger. The National Forest Foundation along with the National Office of the U.S.
Forest Service hosts web-based Peer Learning Sessions for the CFLRP as well as other topics related to CFLRP, including landscape restoration approaches, collaboration and multi-party monitoring (http://www.
nationalforests.org/conserve/peer). An off-shoot of these webinars is a National Monitoring Network that provides landscape examples for setting desired conditions, selecting indicators, developing metrics and triggers and thresholds. Collectively, these peer-learning platforms, along with growing stakeholder networks, will provide future projects with guideposts to collaboration, planning, monitoring, implementation, and adaptive management for landscape-scale restoration projects. Future handbooks will also highlight these examples and provide an even deeper set of lessons to share.